Facial Adjudication of Disciplinary Provisions in Union Constitutions

The ''Bill of Rights'' incorporated in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) guarantees union members freedom of speech and assembly regardless of provisions in union constitutions, but some disciplinary provisions may threaten those rights. The LMRDA's purpose was to encourage creative criticism and self-government within unions. Section 101(b) gives the courts power to enjoin provisions which conflict with the LMRDA, but the power is seldom exercised. Reasonable enforcement of the LMRDA requires reference to the original purposes, which included protection of union democracy and of the personal freedoms of union members. Facial adjudication of disciplinary provisions of union constitutions is necessary. Any provisions clearly contravening the ''Bill of Rights'' of the LMRDA should be voided by the courts. When provisions are vague or overbroad, however, four principles should be utilized: 1. Constitutional principles favoring provisions with a ''core'' of clarity over those with no core should be applied. 2. The chilling effect on the union member should be considered. 3. The practice power of the federal courts to supervise should be considered. 4. The court should consider whether greater precision in drafting a provision may be impossible.